META REFLECTIONS #15 - #26
L. Michael Hall
META-REFLECTIONS
15 THROUGH 26
Note: The following Meta-Reflections were sent out to Neurons from March of 2007 through May.
Meta Reflections #15
March 5, 2007
THE SPIRIT DIMENSION
OF META
PART I
Meta-Land is the land of spirit. That’s why the four meta-dimensions of Neuro-Semantics are also the “spirit” dimension. And while this involves what we call philosophy and religion— Neuro-Semantics is not religion or philosophy. Neuro-Semantics is a model of human functioning, it is a model that models how we operate and experience our life with an eye on developing the processes and tools for mobilizing resources to facilitate full self-actualization so that we can perform our highest meanings.
If that’s what Neuro-Semantics is about, how does it relate to “spirit?” What does it mean that there is a “spirit” dimension in the higher levels of our mind-body system? Over the years, I have received a great many questions about Neuro-Semantics and the “spiritual” dimension of life. In this and the next Reflections, I’ll attempt to address some of these questions.
Modeling “Spirit”
The experience that we call “spirit” and “spiritual” is obviously part of subjective experience.
Yet, what does this mean?
How should we think about “spirit” and “spiritual?”
If we were to model “spirit” as in the human spirit or the qualities and experience of being “spiritual,” how would we go about it?
What is the Neuro-Semantic take on this dimension of life?
Since “spirit” and “spiritual” are nominalizations, noun-like terms that falsely imply some kind of thing, then what are the actual processes (verbs) that we are referring to? Similar to the nominalizations, “mind” and “thoughts,” when we de-nominalize these terms we come back to the non-specific process of “thinking” which we can then specify as representing, editing an image, creating a context by setting a frame-of-reference, etc.
In a general way, the idea of spirit efers to that which is higher in us— the meta-levels of our mind-body experiences. This is one of its meanings, something that is “above and beyond.” And where does this come from? The simplest explanation is that we have a sense of spirit based upon our ability to transcend to higher levels of awareness. We call this higher sense of ourselves spirit. Neuro-Semantically, we are of course describing the experience of reflexivity— reflecting back onto ourselves with additional thoughts-and-feelings. So it is in the process of reflecting back, stepping back, meta-stating, rising up and applying our mental-and-emotional responses to — that creates our sense of transcendence and spirit.
If we are biologically wired with levels in our brain anatomy (which we have) which, in turn, allows us to experience reflexivity so that we can step back from ourselves (in our mind-emotions) and transcend our current experience and move to higher levels of awareness—then “spirituality” is part and parcel of the human experience. This makes it a legacy for all of us, which probably explains why all humans are “spiritual” and have to invent some “religion” to explain this transcendence. Most literally “spirit” means “breath” hence, in-spirited, hence energy.
It is in this sense that all of Meta-Land, all of the meta-dimensions, is what we might call “the spiritual dimension” of life. Here we experience the higher life above and beyond mere survival. Here we move into concepts, meanings, and understandings of things “not seen, not heard, not felt, not smelt, not tasted.” We are at a conceptual level that defines and qualifies our “spirit.”
And these higher frames generate our attitude, which, of course, is another use of “spirit.” Sometimes, when we talk about someone, we say things like, “What kind of a spirit does he have?” “What’s her spirit today? Is she still down?” Spirit in this sense works as a synonym for attitude, for a person’s disposition of mind or of emotion. We even use this language to describe a group attitude, a cultural attitude. We speak about a victimhood spirit, a depressed spirit (disspirited), an inspired spirit (full of spirit, inspirited), a joyful spirit, a playful spirit, etc. We even talk about the “atmosphere” of a business, home, group in terms of spirit. “I like the spirit of that restaurant.” “They have a good spirit there.”
As we use our reflexivity to transcend our current state and include it within a higher attitude, belief, perception, understanding, value, etc., the “spirit” dimension of Meta enables us to ask the “spiritual” or existential (existing) questions: Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going? What is this all about? What’s the meaning of life? Asking such existential questions has been the domain of religion, philosophy, and psychology. Here we enter into the semantic states of “time,” “meaning,” “purpose,” “destiny,” and a hundred other abstractions. And it is regarding these abstractions that we develop various beliefs and belief systems.
Spirit and “Time”
“Time” as another nominalization does not exist except in meta-land. We create “time” as we represent things that have happened, things that are happening, and that will happen. This gives us a flow of events “through time” and so a time line or time channel. Then, as we step back, reflexively contemplate “time” itself, we ask additional temporal questions, the big questions. When did it all start? How? By whom? These are also spiritual questions. Only we human beings are able to enter “time” as thoroughly as a “spiritual” dimension.
Maslow used another facet of time to define spiritual. He said “spiritual” means seeing life “under the aspect of eternity.” It involves being able to take a long-term perspective of life and actions. Animals, who do not live in “time,” do not do this. Nor do children. Nor do people who only live in the concrete world. It is an unique experience for us as we rise above the immediate, here-and-now and think in terms of what shall be.
The Sacred
We also use of the words “spirit” and “spiritual” to convey the conceptual idea of the special, the sacred, the holy, the sense of awe, the feeling of being touched by something that’s more than the human, what we create. This takes us back to the original meaning of the world holy, it literally refers to what is whole, integrated, all-of-one-piece, not dichtomized. Holy refers to what is whole, well, and healthy. Psychologically, it is operating fully, being a“fully functioning” person (Carl Rogers).
So what is the spiritual life is the life of love, compassion, empathy, and care. It is the life of self-awareness, self-control, and self-discipline (emotional intelligence). It is the life of proactivity, responsibility, and accountability. It is the life of openness, honesty, and truth. It is the life of vulnerability, forgiveness, and healing. It is the life of abundance, giving, and extending oneself for the benefit of others. It is the life of goodness, altruism, and virtue. In all of this, are we in the realm of psychology or theology? Or, could it be both?
In Neuro-Semantics, the “spiritual” life is the higher or meta-life. It is the life of the grown-up or mature person who thinks in an integrated, holistic, and systemic way about things. The spiritual life is one of transcendence, peak experiences, and higher values. It is about being able to embrace the unknown and mystery. It is to feel appreciation and gratitude, to embrace the creaturely feeling of being limited, ignorant about so much, humble, to stand in awe before the mysterium tremendum.
To be spiritual is to be god-like in accepting life and reality as it is. It is the sense that life matters, that it is ultimately meaningful, that the universe is friendly (Albert Einstein), that there is good and evil; healthy and unhealthy, that we are ultimate responsible for our choices and actions, to experience self-transcendence in a peak experience. Theologian Paul Tillich defined spiritual and religion as “one’s ultimate concerns,” and “concern with ultimate concerns.”
In all of this, “spiritual” is part and parcel of being human. So, the question is not whether we are “spiritual” beings in search of meaning, purpose, identity, and love. The question is rather the quality of our spirit and of our spirituality. Is our spirit healthy, beautiful and clean? Or is it unhealthy, ugly, and distorted?
In all of this, I have not spoken about “religion” at all— about the specific beliefs and belief systems that characterize the historical religions which have emerged to address our spirit and spiritual quest. So here is the Neuro-Semantic distinction— “spirit” and “spiritual” is built into our biology and nature. We are spiritual to the extent that we can “go meta,” use our self-reflexive consciousness to enter into the higher life. “Religion” inevitably follows as our beliefs and belief systems about our spirituality. It is how we form and construct our understandings and maps about what we experience.
The next Meta Reflections will explore beliefs, ethics, values, and meaning as part and parcel of the “spirit” dimension.
Meta Reflections #16
March 12, 2007
PART II
Neuro-Semantics, as a field, is about performing our highest and most exciting meanings. To perform our highest meanings speaks about our beliefs. It speaks about the beliefs that inspire us, the meanings that energize us with excitement. So as a discipline of modeling experience, we use the tools of Neuro-Semantics to understand our beliefs about the higher dimensions of life, what we call the realm of “spirit” and the “spiritual” state. We can do that because we know that it is beliefs all the way up, beliefs about beliefs.
In this Neuro-Semantics has no commitment to any one form of spirituality; it has no alliance with any religion, although people of many religions and beliefs do use the models and processes. Conversely, we can also use Neuro-Semantics as a modeling tool to evaluate the health or unhealth, the accuracy or inaccuracy, the quality or lack of quality, the value or lack of value of beliefs, belief systems, forms of spirituality, and religion.
How do we go about doing that? First we establish our criteria and make them explicit. Of course, as we do, we acknowledge that whatever we set as our standards, values, and understandings are our maps about such. There is no infallibility although popes of all sizes and shapes are constantly attempting to claim infallibility. No map is the territory. Maps, even invisible mental ones in our heads are just maps. And a map is only as good as what it enables us to do things and facilitates the journey that we want to make.
This distinction enables us to identify the primary thing that turns any belief toxic. Namely, believing in our beliefs. Believing and even having layers of beliefs about our beliefs is one thing, but believing in the ultimate reality and absolute rightness of our beliefs is another. That’s what creates fanatics and fundamentalists. And a fundamentalist fanatic is a very different creature from a person whose beliefs keep him or her opens, curious, explorative, in dialogue, fallible, and modest. It is not belief or believing that separates people, that separates a scientist from a religious person, that separates an atheist from a religious person. We are all believers. The scientist believes in the scientific methodology, the atheist believes in the presence of no God.
When it comes to beliefs and belief systems, we all have them. In fact, we have hundreds, even thousands of beliefs. We have beliefs about ourselves, others, the world, business, wealth, health, criticism, fun, holidays, etc. Whenever we confirm a thought about anything, we begin to believe. We believe that such is “the way it is.” [see Sub-Modalities Going Meta]
We do not just make pictures in the theater of our mind and then add sounds, smells, tastes, and sensations, we have higher level ideas about those images— what they mean, what they suggest, what they demand of us. Beliefs don’t even have to be true to be believed. How about that? How many things have you believed that you now know were not true at all? How many stupid, false, and limiting beliefs have you experienced? What have you believed that stopped you from following your vision, from being true to yourself, from taking chances, from speaking up, etc.?
And because we all believe, we are all religious. We all have ideas about life, about the universe, about purpose and destiny. And those beliefs, those assumptions, guide the way we live our lives. Do we believe in values, morality, ethics? Do we believe in being fair, loving, good, and kind? Do we believe in responsibility, choices, consequences? Beliefs can be ferreted out in behaviors. That is, we can start with a list of our behaviors, the things we do, the way we spend out time, energy, and money. The way we relate, talk, run our business, exercise, eat, etc. and we can backtrack to the beliefs that drive our lifestyle.
Beliefs are not only confirmed thoughts but are also the things of importance that we value. Do you exercise and eat heathy? I bet you not only believe in health and fitness, I bet you value such as a critically important facet of life.
When begin believe in our beliefs, our beliefs become toxic. Believe your beliefs and you close your mind, end the exploration, and become a fanatic. Now, you may even refuse to use the term “belief,” and just say, “I don’t believe that, I know it.” This has been and continues to be one of the greatest dangers facing mankind— politically and internationally. It was bad enough that Hitler believed in his racist ideas. But worse, he believed in his beliefs. That’s what made him a fundamentalist and impossible to work with.
The belief system of the fanatic then has this structure: he believes in his beliefs. This is true for Moslem fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, science fundamentalists, political fundamentalists, environmental fundamentalists, etc. It is the attitude or spirit of assuming one is absolutely right and that being right gives one the right to impose it on others.
Now something else tragically occurs. As the believer is no longer believing so much in the object of the belief, but the belief itself. The person now believes in his ideas, creed, mental maps than the object of the belief, even God. This is a form of idolatry. The belief is valued more than anything else, more than love, compassion, responsibility, ecology, kindness, equality, dignity—for the fundamentalist nothing is more important than the survival and expression of his belief.
Fundamentalism used airplanes as missiles on Sept. 11. Fundamentalism bombs abortion clients to kill doctors for killing. Fundamentalism fed the intolerance of Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam, and every other dictator. Fundamentalism ruins marriages, destroys businesses, and sabotages communication.
What frees us from that kind of fanaticism is the realization that our beliefs are beliefs— fallible maps conceived in a fallible brain. When you know that, instead of believing in your beliefs, you’ll keep an open mind to exploring the foundational facts, exploring with a humble attitude that you could be wrong, and dialoguing with others to discover what others know that you don’t.
I learned a trick for separating the fanatics some years ago. I lived in town where almost weekly someone was knocking on my door wanting to share their beliefs, to give me their pamphlets, and show me the truth. “Great!” I’d say. “Come right on in, if you can be wrong and are willing to have an open-mind and dialogue with my truth as well. I’ll be open-minded to your truth to the extent that you could be wrong. So, if you could be wrong in your beliefs, step across this threshold.”
Talk about a way to stop a fundamentalist cold in his steps! Typically, because I set the frame, if you could be wrong step across the threshold and let’s explore, they would stay outside and argue that they are right, no question about it. “Absolutely?” I would ask. “Totally and completely and you know the absolute truth and you could not be wrong?” Some would hesitate but eventually nod yes, others were ignorant enough about their own ignorance and fallibility to say, “Yes, of course.” Ah, they believed in their beliefs!
I would then dismiss them. “I’m not interested in talking to an infallible god this morning, I was kind of hoping for a good fallible human being. If you ever step down from being an infallible know-it-all pope and embrace you own ignorance, come and see me.”
Meta Reflections #17
March 19, 2007
PART III
If, in the dimension of spirit, there are beliefs and belief systems, and beliefs all the way up, and beliefs about all kinds of things. For example, there are beliefs about values, beliefs about ethics, beliefs about origin and source, beliefs about ending or teleology, beliefs about God or Intelligence or the Ultimate concern, beliefs about human nature, and so on. And these are the kinds of beliefs that make up the “spiritual” facet of our lives and that make up the content of our “religion.”
What is the Neuro-Semantic position on all of this? There is a two-fold position. And this two-fold focus leads to two very different responses.
First, the area where we take no position. As we consider this dimension of life where all these beliefs operate, we are dealing with beliefs, concepts, understandings and do not have access to the actual references. So, without any actual referent, there’s nothing to model or study.
Second, the area where we can take a position. Yet because these are beliefs, we can model the beliefs themselves, we can model the people who hold such beliefs, and we can model out the result of these beliefs.
First, No Actual References
In Neuro-Semantics we take no position about the content of beliefs about God, or any given belief about any given religion. All of that belongs to theology or philosophy and is not the focus, direction, or purpose of Neuro-Semantics. We respect that the mapping and modeling tools of Neuro-Semantics (including NLP, General Semantics, etc.) is for mapping human experience—the subjective experience of people. We leave it to other fields to figure out as best they can the content of these domains.
Second, Modeling Belief Experiences
What we can model are the beliefs and experiences of people —the beliefs that enrich their lives, expand their choices, and enable them to be loving, joyful, healthy, creative, informed, contributing, etc. And we can also model the beliefs and experiences of the beliefs that reduce the quality of life, limit possibilities, induce negative states that undermine sanity and health. Then, from those modeling experiences, we can deduce that there are beliefs about such “spiritual” things that support and enhance life, are ecological for relationships, and those that do not. Yet even when we do that, it’s important to remember that this does not establish the truth or validity of those beliefs, only their usefulness, their effectiveness in human personality, and whether they tend to support health or to be toxic.
We can model peak experiences— when men and women are at their best, when they feel that they are living at their best, being their best, having a sense of transcendence over time, space, culture, others, etc. And from modeling these peak experiences, we can identify the things that seem to support a “spiritual” way of life, that is, living with a sense of meaning, purpose, direction; living to create, contribute, and leave the world in a better way; living with passion and joy that enriches others.
We can even model people of “high ethics” to identify how they think about ethics, what they believe about how to treat others, what particular criteria and standards contribute to an ethical lifestyle. Does honesty, openness, flexibility, care, empathy, respect, etc.? Which are the highest in priority when there’s a conflict between these values? We can model how our self-reflexive consciousness that creates our ethics, levels of ethics, growth and development of ethics, cultural ethics and development, and how they are effectively languaged.
We can model the ethical beliefs that seem to create the best kind of social relationships, that lead to an entire society being supportive of human life— creating respect, honesty, responsibility, etc. We can model the relationship between psychological growth and ethics, religious beliefs and ethics, ownership of personal responsibility and ethics. We can model ethical decision-making, how it works, those who seemed skilled in it, those who do not. We could model the ethics of the “criminal mind” and those with little sense of others, empathy, and “conscience.”
We could model ethics in the light of self-actualization and the being-values. We could model those who have a healthy sense of “ought-ness” within them (as in, What ought I to do? How ought I to live?) and compare that to those who have an unhealthy sense of “oughtness.”
In all of these ways, Neuro-Semantics, as a tool and set of models for discovering the inner structure and process of experience, could offer a contribution. But in itself, Neuro-Semantics is not a “spirituality,” not a religion, not a philosophy, and not an ethical code. We have an ethical code that we have accepted about operating from a spirit of inquiry, abundance, professionalism, openness, responsibility, accountability, etc. But again, that’s not what Neuro-Semantics is.
Meta Reflections #18
March 26, 2007
PART IV
In the current Meta Reflections I’ve been attempting to answer the question about the relationship of Neuro-Semantics to “spirituality” and “religion.” As most people notice in Neuro-Semantic trainings, because we invite people to rise up above and beyond the primary state to their higher mental-and-emotional states, many of...
wolszew